United States v. Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
105 F. Supp. 215 (1952)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. (DuPont), an American company, and Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd. (ICI) (defendant), a British company based in London, were determined to have violated § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by dividing the market for nylon products, including in the United States and the United Kingdom. DuPont developed patents for nylon and initially licensed its British patents to ICI for use in the United Kingdom and other countries. In 1946, DuPont assigned the British patents to ICI. ICI had an exclusive arrangement with British Nylon Spinners, Ltd. (BNS) for BNS to manufacture nylon yarn from nylon polymer manufactured by ICI. ICI owned 50 percent of BNS. ICI assigned particular inventions and patents to DuPont for its exclusive use in the United States. Under British law, a patent holder could bar the import of products into Britain that infringed on the patent. Similarly, DuPont could block imports into the United States that infringed on its United States patents and inventions. Effectively, the arrangement prevented ICI from importing nylon and nylon products into the United States and DuPont from importing nylon and nylon products into Britain, thereby mutually restraining trade. The assignment for the court was to fashion a decree that would prevent further violations of the act.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ryan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
